Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by Celtic1, Feb 4, 2013.
It's a very sad development. Such a betrayal to those he serves.
If I hear "I was born this way" one more time, I'm going to scream. Not only is there no credible research on this topic, they seem to forget that pedophiles, wife beaters, shop lifters, alcoholics, deviants practicing bestiality, and others also claim this. Will the Bishop entertain the idea of ordaining other groups "born that way"?:think:
It is an excuse every human being can have to any sin and failing, we were born that way! But like David, instead of driving us to resign, it should lead us to repent and ask God's Mercy and accept His salvation:
Psalm 51:5-Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Psalm 51:1-Have mercy on me, O God,
according to your steadfast love;
according to your abundant mercy
blot out my transgressions.
I wonder if they excuse all sins and human failing that way.
We are all born congenital sinners. We are all born that way. But by God's grace we can be reborn something different, the very righteousness of God in Christ.
For the extremist-liberal Christians, this is not about having compassion on the "I was born this way" crowd, but rather about destroying all objectivity. They already are the sort who deny the fundamentals of the Creed, but they have an inner impulse which tells them to go further. God doesn't exist, they say; He's just the sum of human life forces! We must free up all human life to do whatever it wants, therefore, because free life "is God".
If anyone is sorrowing, let him be assured that measures are being taken against this destruction of orthodoxy. Certain plans are coming into effect across the Communion, even now, which will work unto the furtherance of the Gospel even in these days.
I wonder what will happen to the small churches throughout Mississippi, many of which were already barely hanging on. Some have closed their doors in the last decade, too.
I would be glad if this caused growth in the AMiA and ACNA across Mississippi.
If you were a Mississippi Episcopalian, what do you think you would do?
Here are some more comments and links from Stand Firm in Faith about this situation:
"The clergy order in Mississippi favors same-sex blessings by a margin of approximately 70-30.
The lay order in Mississippi opposes them by approximately 70-30. Maybe 60-40, but there a solid majority against."
Promises, Promises: What Now for the Loyal Opposition in Mississippi?
This is really a fascinating phenomenon. Why are the laity always the most conservative persons in a given Communion? The laity oppose this in Mississippi, the laity stopped women bishops in England, and laity tend to be the force behind many such strong defenses against "Progress".
Maybe it's because the laity haven't been educated (indoctrinated) in some far-off urban seminary (cemetery). No, I'm not against theological education; I'm firmly for it -- if it is education and not indoctrination.
I'd stay. The faithful need to remain and stand for the truth. Retreat merely strengthens the revisionists.
Before anybody reads too much into what I'm saying: I have no problem with the Continuing Anglicans, REC, ACNA, or AM. If that's where you're called, that's where you should be. One must follow the conscience that God has given to him. We each might have a different line that cannot be crossed. Also, if one were raising small children, that might affect the decision as well (if there was concern about what Sunday Schools might begin to teach, for example). But in my situation, as an Episcopalian, I would stay in a TEC parish if a good one could be found.
Brothers and sisters, allow me to offer an opinion. While the current struggle in Mississippi involving homosexuality is a real danger/insult to the church, I feel we must look deeper at the root cause of this and other movements. I personally feel there is a silent move underway to remove any and all authority away from scripture, denigrating it to a "useful historical document", the most obvious coming from the Presiding Bishop in her pronouncement of Jesus being "a way", instead of "the" way. She also authorized that an individual Parish may remove the words "The word of the Lord" after a reading, and replace it with "hear what the spirit is saying to the church". While she and other outspoken Bishops make an easy target for us, the real danger lies in the growing number of seminaries teaching this garbage, who not only instruct Anglican/Episcopal students, but Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, American Baptist and others.
For those in traditions who allow the individual parish to call a rector, especially those in the ECUSA and others using the current BCP, closely question your candidate from page 526 of the BCP, concerning their ordination vows.
"I am willing and ready to do so; and I solemnly declare that I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the word of God, and do contain all things necessary to salvation." BCP pg.526
And I would wish you the best, but, for several reasons, I would not be able to stay.
The only reason I wouldn't stay would be if the lines of apostolic succession had been so perilously compromised that I couldn't be sure who was a truly-ordained priest or bishop. If I could find an unquestionably valid bishop to satisfy my conscience in the Episcopal Church USA, I would certainly stay. Leaving to form your own denomination is a crime unto the Lord, in my opinion.
I wondered this years ago when the ECUSA aligned with the ELCA Lutherans, were all their Pastor's examined and accepted? There is also two very different hierarchical structures, not to mention pension funds.
They reached a compromise. The current ELCA pastors just continued in their ministry. All future pastors, however, would have Episcopalian bishops participate in their ordinations. Eventually, all new pastors and bishops would be in Succession through TEC's lines.
If they ever hope to reconcile with RCC they'll need to make sure the ordaining bishop has that Dutch touch or its no good.
Do you mean a theologically/morally orthodox bishop?
Which means absolutely nothing if they're apostate.
I mean one who is properly consecrated by another in the apostolic succession. He remains a bishop ontologically, thanks to the laying on of hands. I would not personally attach myself to that bishop, nor worship God with/under him, were he theologically and/or morally bankrupt. I could not deny his status as an actual bishop, just as I can't say that a murderer is not a human being. Nature and character remain, despite failings and direct contradictions.
Of course, while this particular bishop in Mississippi is "a bishop", I can easily say "he is no bishop!"